Time and chance happeneth to them all

[shalanna]

Claim of a post on RWA mailing list:
"The first thing any agent does when they have an interest in a writer is hit GOOGLE."

And Miss Snark writes (in her public forum) to multiply published author Sandra Scoppettone:

I beg to point out that the new editor you're assigned will most likely be less than 30, in publishing for fewer than 10 years, probably five, and the FIRST thing s/he'll do is read your blog.

So . . . if the agent(s) and editor(s) reading my weblog would please leave a comment, I'd feel much better. I mean, they MUST be reading me, right? (Yeah, right.) I don't think they have the time to do that.

Really. I still don't believe that agents have time to go googly-moogly for anyone whose partials they request. How could they possibly have that kind of free time? It takes forever for them to get around to reading the partials themselves, or so it seems from this end, and they couldn't have the time to look at every Web mention of every potential author. I think this is something that a very, very FEW assistants might do in spare moments, but certainly not the majority. It takes a long time to poke around and websurf, and you have to wade through a lot of false hits. There are people I knew in high school who simply cannot be found on the Web, although many people who have the same names as my old friends can be found--and I end up looking at all the possibilities and not finding the people I knew. That just seems like a waste of valuable time, and I don't believe agents have the time to spend on such things.

It is more believable that Sandra's new editor might read her weblog. After all, he or she is definitely going to be working with her. But y'know, it seems as if the editor would probably do better just calling Sandra in the first place and ASKING whatever it is s/he wants to know, or asking, "Why don't you want to work with me," in a friendly/teasing way, so they can work out the issue. After all, they're going to work together. They have one another's phone numbers. I don't see the point, really, in judging her by one or two angsty weblog entries when you can just call her up. I am a fan of her novels, and I also get angsty here in my LJ, and so I don't see the reason for the hoo-ha (although it got her a lot of free publicity--and as P. T. Barnum or somebody once said, there is no such thing as bad publicity). If she wants to say she'd prefer an older editor, what the hell. Who cares? They can have a good laugh about it when she actually gets to know the new editor, whoever it may be. You can't wear your heart on your sleeve. It gets starched.

Anyway, we'll never know the truth. We can't live in fear and edit everything we think or say or do because we're afraid somebody will take it wrong or read something more into it. I keep seeing the claims that agents and editors will google you up, seek out your weblog, look at photos you've posted, and judge whether they can stand to work with you from that. Well . . . okay, I guess, if that's what's happening. You might as well know the worst up front. But it just seems like a colossal timesink. Websurfing can really eat up the hours.

You really don't find out that much about a person from his or her public journal, I have found; it's the side that the person chooses to present to the world, and sometimes there's quite a bit of "spin" on the site or in the weblog. Often I find that the people with the snarkiest, most whiny journals are very easygoing and friendly in person--and I suspect that part of the reason they're so clear of issues is that they work a lot of that out in the journaling. There are books about journaling for growth and journaling for self-therapy and so forth that talk about how helpful it can be to work through issues by writing about them, and it's also helpful to get some feedback and commiseration from the people on your friends list. I can't take it too seriously when somebody thinks he or she is going to "know the real you" from reading over your website, your LiveJournal, or a few posts you make on a newsgroup . . . not unless that person corresponds with you for several weeks (preferably months) and sees more facets of you over time. I feel that I do know the people I've been on the Fido WRITING mailing list with pretty well, but then I've been there with most of them since early 1986 and have spoken with them on the telephone and corresponded with a few by snailmail. I've gotten to know others over the past couple of years from the various piano lists I'm on, and I feel that I know quite a bit about them, but couldn't say whether I know how they'd react in various situations. That would require more personal contact. You can only really get a sense of a person from long-time correspondence, I think.

But then I could, of course, be wrong. It happened a couple of times before. (grin)

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I suspect what they mean is, they might hit on the blog and skim-read for ten seconds, looking for warning flags: is this writer threatening people, or talking about the voices they hear, or displaying other signs of "This one is going to be a pain in the A to work with--pass."

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

Whaddaya mean, all these interesting people who turn up in my head aren't real?

Wait till I tell valendon

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

LOL!!!

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Well . . . that makes more sense. I wonder how scary I seem? *grin*

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I don't think scary--perhaps a bit wordy (and one always has the option to skim), but not scary, insane, neo-Nazi, lawyer-throwing, mouth-foaming crazy.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Tell that to the poor little homeless people I accidentally terrorized on Thanksgiving, though. (GRIN) I tell you what, they knew a nutcase when they saw one, and I was one. Maybe I should venture out into a smaller downtown and get acclimated--like, maybe, downtown Plano (TX). Start small. The canyons of New York may be forever contraindicated, unless I can get somebody else to drive!

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

LOL! That has to have been a priceless moment...though I'm sure you could have done without the mondo aggravation leading up to it.

[deannahoak.livejournal.com]

I Google people all the time, and if I were an agent I'm fairly certain I would do so with anyone I was interested in representing. It doesn't take that much time unless the person has a really common name, in which case there's little use in trying (though you could always type in the title of the writer's novel, too, just to see what came up).

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

Well, I've just googled myself, and while it comes up with my homepage (and links which previously worked were broken, I do need to update it) it won't lead you to my livejournal or anything of interest. Most hits are usenet posts randomly archived, though there are quite a few of those.

[deannahoak.livejournal.com]

Since I blog under my own name, my LJ is the first hit that comes up when I Google myself.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Ah. So . . . let me ask you this. How scary do I seem? (grin) I am told that I should worry about that. But I still cling to the idea that there isn't any use pretending to be never-whiny and ever-lasting here, because I'll burst that bubble within a few minutes of meeting you in person. I try to be perfect, but it doesn't stick. I blame it on the artistic temperament.

I have given up on ever finding the right Karen Smith and Judy Hill online, though. There were two Karen Smiths in our own school choir, and so one went by "Smitty" for her entire high school career. (grin)

(I still wonder at people taking the time to google up the clients, but maybe they aren't as busy as I thought (*GRIN*)) (and also I figured that a web presence was good promotional material, so if your client seems to know how to have a web presence, it's all good--you'd just change your site to be all "buy this book, how great I am, whoop whoop" stuff rather than reflecting your personal interests and other interesting stuff.)

Thanks for answering! I am hoping to get you as a copy editor someday. Actually, what I mean is if someday ever arrives.

[deannahoak.livejournal.com]

Common names are tough, though if you're looking for the "Smitty" it should be easier. Not this one? http://www.gulfhigh.org/1964.html

Absent a really common name, though, and knowing a few things about someone in order to narrow down the search field, a Google search really doesn't take that much time.

You don't seem scary to me. :)

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I think if someone uses a blog or webpage to promote themselves they should be prepared that it will be scrutinized. I *do* get a sense of people from usenet posts and blogs, and so far meeting them has confirmed that sense - most people are very honest in their writing, whether they mean to be or not. Staying in character is hard work, as writers know, and you'd have to be *really* dedicated to your screen persona.

Whingeing is one thing (it's a personal blog after all.) Not noticing that you're standing in a hole and asking for a shovel is another. Repeatedly proving that you are having trouble with reading comprehension, that you blow off first and listen later, that you don't know which hills you should pick to die on (hemlines, anyone?), and failing to impress with your ability to use language to its best advantage, well, those are things that would make me think twice about a writer. Even as a reader I'm taking them into consideration, just as I am more willing to listen to a writer who has interesting things to say in an interesting fashion. If a writer can see the funny or poignant side to their daily grind, that's a selling point for me.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

This is a great reply. Ever thought of becoming a writer? (grinning, ducking, & running) (asked in the same spirit as when Jerry Lewis asked Dean Martin after 20 years, "So, are you working?")

So . . . am I standing in a hole beneath a stable and begging for a shovel?

I was hoping to impress with my ability to use language with flair and with seeing the poignant side to a family Thanksgiving. But then that isn't what people would see on a quick Google-and-scan bombing run, on the whole, is it? They see that only if they're long-term readers. Thus . . . I kind of agree with you when we're talking about people who are on my f-list or who read the journal regularly, but I don't know that I agree very strongly if we're talking about an agent who just does a Google hit and takes a glance at the homepage on my website and/or at the latest LJ entry. If you just hit the latest, it could be that I've just posted a bunch of links or some lame joke I heard at a party. I can't be profound ALL the time. So let's hope they scroll down to some of the good entries, if such entries exist, and if they actually come. ("If you build it, they will come . . . and they will leave empty cola cans all over the place.")

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

So . . . am I standing in a hole beneath a stable and begging for a shovel?

Not you. Sandra Scoppettone. It's one thing to say make a blanket statement in the heat of the moment, but if someone calls you on it, it's wise to consider whether you *really* meant to say that.

Writers are supposed to have a certain way with words. I'll forgive any writer a heat-of-the-moment-thing. Goodness knows that I blunder - I speak out, sometimes without reading all of the context, sometimes without *knowing* all of the context, and on rereading what I've just made public I find that my words are less forgiving, more controversial than I mean them to be. If I chose the wrong words, if I chose words that unwittingly offended, I see it as my duty to look at my words and amend them, if possible, or at least apologise for their effect. I should not have chosen them so badly in the first place.

Sandra, for all her fifteen-novel-publishing record, does not have that affinity with words. Maybe she polishes her words a lot more than she does her blog posts, but if I were an editor I would think twice and thrice about supporting someone who was a) ageist, b) unable to consider the full implication of her words as they stood on the page, and c) defensive, quickly offended and obsessed with detail.

>I was hoping to impress with my ability to use language with flair and with seeing the poignant side to a >family Thanksgiving. But then that isn't what people would see on a quick Google-and-scan bombing run, >on the whole, is it? They see that only if they're long-term readers.

As I said, anyone can write on their blogs what they like, although I think (and should do the same) that some things might be better friendslocked if they are too rare to be shared with the world. (Which, to a degee, is silly, because I'm friending total strangers if they have something interesting to say and I would like to get to know them better)

>If you just hit the latest, it could be that I've just posted a bunch of links or some lame joke I heard at a >party. I can't be profound ALL the time.

That's an interesting excursion in the nature of livejournal. I guess I feel that I write for myself and anyone who is interested, so I don't censor my thoughts by 'is this interesting'; but I do have self-censorship in that I ask myself whether what I want to write is _fair_ and to a degree, whether it is _kind_. Most of all, I ask whether it is *me*, whether it represents a side of me I want to own up to before myself.

As for thanksgiving - I think next time you should simply send a hamper full of food to your family, snuggle up to your beloved, and celebrate at home. But then, I am not the most diplomatic of persons...

[coneycat.livejournal.com]

I still don't believe that agents have time to go googly-moogly for anyone whose partials they request.

I'm sure you're right, but Miss Snark was talking about a published writer who was being handed off to another editor after her own left the company. That's very different from requesting a partial from an unpublished writer. In this case I think checking out a blog is a likely thing for the editor to do, even out of pure curiosity.

And while you may be right that you don't learn much about a persno from their blog, that doesn't mean people won't be drawing conclusions based on the information they have to go on. People on the Internet are pretty much all characters in each other's minds, I figure. Most of the time it doesn't matter, but it might be awkward if you suddenly have to form a working relationship with someone whose blog makes them seem cranky, disrespectful, and difficult.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Oh, you're right about the editor reading Sandra's weblog (especially now! *grin*) . . . I was saying that surely the editor would call her up and say, "What turned you against me?" But say it in a teasing way to let her know that all was not yet lost.

I was talking about the various claims (like that first one I cited) that I see, where people say, "It's taken for granted that the first thing agents do is google you up.") That seems a lot less of a "given." But then I tend to get caught up in reading a lot of stuff when I discover a journal/blog, and so it takes a lot of time. Here's hoping they have more self-discipline than I do!

I was also kind of warning against drawing too many firm conclusions from partial info. I have known a number of con artists (not you, not y'all on the comment list, not the people I talk to online, but people from my past, including one of my own cousins on Daddy's side who came out of the Green Berets a changed person) who can present a charming, pleasant side but actually be hiding a very disrespectful and deceitful side. (And it doesn't become apparent until you're halfway into the trap.) So looking at the side of a person that they're sharing by putting up reminiscences and anecdotes won't necessarily reveal whether that person will be a pain to work with. It could be that if the person's weblog is way Out There you'd be correct in assuming they're a flake . . . or maybe not. I suppose a reader could know in advance that there might be a problem in person because of the weirdness of the website, but it's tough to predict. I have met people who seemed really off-putting in their posts on a newsgroup but who turned out to be perfectly reasonable in person--sometimes that's just because the body language is lacking in their posts, and you miss a lot of the nonverbal content with their posts.

On the other hand, you might argue that a writer should be able to put across that kind of stuff in writing, or else he/she ain't such a good writer . . . *grin*

I dunno. I am always kind of amazed at the kinds of conclusions people feel they can draw about another person just from meeting them for one minute, or reading one post, or reading one novel by that person . . . I always tend to think there's a lot more beneath the surface, including reasons in the past that have shaped these attitudes. And it usually takes a lot more time to see the stuff underneath the top of that iceberg. Still, all of that deep stuff may not matter so much if you're just going to have a business relationship. Who cares why the guy is always cranky if he's cranky and you don't want to deal with cranky. . . .

[horace-hamster.livejournal.com]

I am always kind of amazed at the kinds of conclusions people feel they can draw about another person just from meeting them for one minute, or reading one post, or reading one novel by that person . . .

I agree that you can't tell much about a person by reading a novel they've written, other than perhaps judging their ability to write, unless the novel happens to be one of those in the omniscent POV with a clear external narrator who is clearly the author. But I do think that readers start making assumptions about a character, or a blogger, or a new acquaintance, right from the first sentence.

Flash fiction can work; characters can leap off the page right from the first paragraph; bloggers' personalities can come through in a minimum of text. That's partly why personal diaries and letters are so fascinating: they let the reader see right into the author's head with no veils, no pretense, no masks.

IMO, a blogger's comments, word choices, vocabulary, descriptions, opinions, emphasised points, even pseudonyms, all reveal part of the blogger's personality, and the reader begins building a composite picture in their mind of the blogger, just as they do about a story character. And I think bloggers often aren't aware of what their text reveals about them.

[janni.livejournal.com]

I don't think any editor or agent googles all the writers they ask for partials from, but I'm sure they do do so for anyone they're seriously considering.

I mean, I google anyone I'm submitting to before I submit. Why would editor or agent be different?

I think mostly the purpose of googling is to make sure the person in question isn't a jerk, and maybe to get some more general feel for what they're like.

This is a different thing, but when I met my editor in person for the first time, she'd already googled me.

I do try to keep in mind that anything I post in my blog could become someone's first impression of me, if they happen to stumble in the day or hour that post is up top.

[beth-bernobich.livejournal.com]

What Janni Said.

I know at least one editor googled me, and another one followed the link from my Strange Horizons bio to my website. That second one also checked my online journal once a month or so for over a year (I could tell by the site stats).